M.Kalawathi v. Telangana State

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.7196 of 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not shifting the transform installed by the respondents attached to the western side wall the petitioner's house bearing Municipal No.13-3-1087/150/A, Bharat Nagar, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also against the provisions of Electricity Act and Rules and also against Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2.

Heard Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioner that the respondents have installed a transformer in front of her house bearing Municipal No.13-3-1087/150/A, Bharat Nagar, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, without obtaining any permission from her and the said transformer is causing lot of inconvenience for ingress and egress of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the respondents to shift the transformer to any other place or atleast in the alternative, install the latest transformer, so that it may not cause any inconvenience.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that though the petitioner has been requesting the respondents to shift the transformer, the respondents are not taking any action and in fact, the

respondents have submitted an estimation of nearly Rs.2,50,000/- for shifting the transformer. Therefore, learned counsel contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to shift the transformer or in the alternative, replace the transformer with the transformer of latest technology, so that it will not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner. 5.

Learned Standing Counsel had submitted that let the petitioner submit a representation to the respondents and thereupon, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such representation being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within eight weeks thereafter.

7.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10th February 2020 mar